See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354978932

The carbon footprint of construction industry: A review of direct and indirect

emission

Article in Journal of Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies · September 2021

DOI: 10.29187/jscmt.2021.66

CITATIONS READS

20 6,851

3 authors:

Vivek Mathur Mahmoud Murtala Farouq

Sharda University Kano University of Science & Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yahaya Hassan Labaran

Gaziantep University
11 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yahaya Hassan Labaran on 08 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

Journal of Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies

Web page info: https://jscmt.yildiz.edu.tr
Journal of Sustainable Construction
DOI: 10.29187/jscmt.2021.66 Materials and Technologies

Review Article

The carbon footprint of construction industry: A review of direct

and indirect emission
Yahaya Hassan LABARAN1* , Vivek Shankar MATHUR1 , Mahmoud Murtala FAROUQ2
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharda University Greater Noia, India
1

Department of Civil Engineering, Kano University of Science an Technology, Wudil, Nigeria

2

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history
Received: 01 May 2021 The construction industry is considered to be among the major sectors that contribute sig-
Accepted: 13 July 2021 nificantly toward the emission of GHGs in our environment, which have a major effect on
the climate change, and is approximately responsible for about 19 percent of the overall GHG
Key words: emission globally, rendering it a pollution hotspot requiring urgent mitigation measures. Un-
Carbon footprint, construction fortunately, there are few studies on this subject to help construction companies meet their
industry, direct emission, low-carbon targets. As a result, this paper reviewed the contributions of researchers across the
greenhouse gas, indirect globe towards carbon dioxide and other GHGs emissions from the industry. After a systematic
emission, lifecycle assessment, review of some of these studies, it was found that the majority of researchers focused primarily
review on a specific feature of the construction industry, a case study of a particular country/city or
region, using the Life Cycle Assessment approach. And, even those who have studied similar
aspects such as cement or steel, have all used different methodologies, units, and techniques of
reporting. As such, a comparison between the findings of the literature is unrealistic. Despite
this, the scope of the emission from the construction industry is remarkably clear, and the
carbon findings can be found throughout the literature.

Cite this article as: Labaran YH, Mathurb VS, Farouq MM. The carbon footprint of con-
struction industry: A review of direct and indirect emission. J Sustain Const Mater Technol
2021;6:3:101–115.

1. INTRODUCTION
The sudden growth in the greenhouse gas emissions
within our environment was initiated from the industrial
age till around the end of the eighteenth century [1]. Hu-
man activities are the primary contributors to all these
emissions by the consumption of fossil fuels and deserti-
fication, which increases the amount of greenhouse gasses
in the atmosphere at an immense rate [1, 2]. The increase
in CO2 has become the agreed level above which the con-
sequences of climate change will become dangerous. The
impact of these actions on humankind will be pervasive
and lead to disruptive weather disasters, agricultural pro-
duction instability, and public health challenges [3]. CO2 is
one of the dominant compound elements of the greenhouse
gases and the principal causal factor of global warming [4].
It accounts for almost 82% of overall global warming, with
the remainder coming from active greenhouse gases, meth-

*Corresponding author.
*E-mail address: yahayakura@gmail.com

Published by Yıldız Technical University Press, İstanbul, Turkey

Copyright 2021, Yıldız Technical University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
102 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
ane, and nitrous oxide [5]. The United States Energy Infor-
mation and Administration estimated that by 2035, global
carbon dioxide emissions would grow to around 7 percent
higher than that in 2007 [6]. This suggests a potential rise
in overall greenhouse gas emissions in many countries [6].
In his study, Wei Huang et al. [7] found a percentage rise in
the annual average growth rate of the carbon footprint from
buildings in the urban areas of Xiamen between 2005 and
2009. The carbon footprint growth between 2005 and 2007
was low, but it started to leap in 2008 [6]. In general, he
found that there was an increase in the CO2 emissions from
the onsite construction activities, production of construc-
tion materials, building waste disposal, building use, and
material transportation [7]. In addition to that, a November
2018 study from the United Nations World Meteorological
Organization found that average global CO2 concentration
in 2017 exceeded 405.5 ppm, higher than that of 2015 and
2016, in which the concentration was 400.1 ppm and 403.3
ppm respectively [5]. The increment of these emissions in
our atmosphere has caused the average global temperature
to rise over the past 100 years by more than one degree Cel-
sius [1, 8]. However, if left uncontrolled, the average tem-
peratures of the earth may increase in the next coming 100
years by about 4.5 degrees Celsius or even more [1, 8]. Re-
lated research studies on economic, social, as well as other
aspects were undertaken by various governments, organi-
zations, and scholars, attempting to discover a low-carbon
opportunity for sustainable development [9].
Global warming and several other environmental issues
have stirred up strong international community concerns
[9]. A series of international treaties have been signed, such
as the “Bali Roadmap (2007), the UN Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change (1992), the Copenhagen Agreement
(2009), and the Kyoto Protocol (1997)”, demonstrating the
Government’s commitment to respond to the global warm-
ing [9, 10]. Countries have made promises on pollution cuts
and a plan of action according to the consensus has been fi-
nalized. Thus, the revolutionary ideas of the low-carbon life,
low-carbon economy, carbon tax, low-carbon environment,
and carbon trading, etc. have become the world’s primary
development strategy [9]. The 2015 to 2050 period can be
considered as an era of transition phase toward net-zero
emissions for both buildings as well as the physical envi-
ronment reflecting the agreement reached by the numerous
countries attending the Paris “COP 21” [11] in 2015 [4]. The
conference saw a big milestone with various stakeholders
from around the world agreeing that environmental change
is a shared problem for humanity. They decided that steps
and measures need to be implemented to keep the average
temperature of the earth well below 2 degrees Celsius with
attempts to restrict the warming around 1.5 degrees Celsius
[1, 11]. Because of such agreements, Malaysia attempted
to minimize about 40% per capita of its carbon and other
GHG emissions by 2020 [12]. Also, the United Kingdom
has set out big plans for the zero-carbon rating of all new
household and commercial structures by 2016 and 2020
[13]. These are among the world’s most advanced sustain-
able goals for the built environment [13]. The construction
sector is making a rapid transition toward net-zero carbon
and energy buildings infrastructure. Today, the NZE Build-
ings are more often affordable and widely available across
many countries [14]. Unfortunately, there are fewer studies
on this dimension to help companies meet their low-car-
bon targets. As such this paper focuses on examining the
numerous contributions of researchers across the globe to-
wards carbon emission from the construction industry. To
this end, a systematic review of the carbon footprint studies
of the construction industry were undertaken, highlighting
the key results and gaps for future research.
2. METHODOLOGY
A total of 105 research papers were collected origi-
nally for the study focusing on the carbon footprint of
the construction sector in general, of which only 61 were
chosen for the study offering a more detailed overview
of the construction industry from multiple perspectives
[15]. Two steps were used to improve the quality and re-
liability of the literature review sources [13]. The first step
was carried out using structured keywords in high-qual-
ity scientific repositories and journals, including Scopus,
ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and the rest
from other reputable journals such as Hindawi, Academ-
ic Journal of Science, American Journal of Engineering
Research, Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering,
Journal of Environment and Earth Science, etc. Most of
these articles have been published or cited over the last ten
years, to ensure reliability. Various keywords were used to
obtain the materials, some of which include, carbon, car-
bon footprint, green building, sustainable construction,
zero carbon, cleaner production, carbon assessment, sus-
tainable building materials, rating system, etc. The search
found that there were a small number of papers dealing
specifically with the carbon footprint of the construc-
tion industry and very few major reviews in the field. The
second step consisted of industry and university studies,
governments and international agencies reports, internet
and media publications, etc. most of which are frequently
alluded to by numerous stakeholders in the construction
industry when contemplating concepts related to carbon
emission aspects. This study includes databases approved
by well-established sources such as the IPCC report, the
World Bank records, and UN studies and reports, etc. Ma-
jority of the review studies have some limitations [13], but,
in this study, a strong emphasis was placed on discussing
the general research results and content analysis by various
authors on the carbon footprint of the construction sector,
rather than targeting specific articles, writer, or a specific
aspect of the industry. The process used in establishing this
study is demonstrated in the Figure 1 [13].
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
Figure 1. Literature review workflow (adopted from Zaid Alwan et al. 2015).
3. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
3.1 GHG
Greenhouse gas is a general name for a group of gases
containing CH4, CO2, N2O, SF6, HFC, and PFC that usually
trap heat from the sunlight in our atmosphere, and they are
the essential causative factor for the persistent rise in the
average temperature of the earth [16].
3.2 GWP
The potential of retaining sunlight heat by a particular GHG
based on its absorption capacity in the atmosphere is called the
global warming potential of that respective gas, which is de-
termined over a given period. The primary objective of using
GWPs is to transform a particular GHGs into CO2e, which is
the common method of global emission reporting [16].
3.3 CO2e
CO2 equivalent is a statistical scale that is used for the
evaluation and measurement of different GHGs emissions on
the basis of their GWP. The CO2e of a particular gas can be
obtained by the multiplication of its weight by its related glob-
al warming potential as described in equation 1. Below [16];
“kgCO2e=(weight of the gas in kg)×(GWP of the gas).……… (1)”
3.4 CF
The carbon footprint is the cumulative quantity of GHG
emissions generated by a person, firm, company, activities,
or items, measured in CO2e, and expressed in tons of car-
bon dioxide emissions per year [17].
3.5 LCA Approach
The Life cycle assessment aims to identify the environ-
mental impact that any services or goods may have from its
beginning (cradle) to its end (grave). The definition of cradle
to grave concept implies that; the consequences from the ex-
traction to final disposal of a product is properly considered
over its entire life cycle, these, however, include all the activ-
ities in between such as production, transportation, packag-
ing, processing, and other associated services [18–20].
4. CARBON FOOTPRINT OF CONSTRUCTION IN-
DUSTRY
The construction industry is considered to be among
the major sectors that contribute significantly toward the
103
emission of GHGs in our environment through the mech-
anism of energy usage, various GHGs emissions associated
with the energy production, and generation of waste, etc.
And due to its significant contribution to higher GHGs
emissions, Mahmure et al. [21] regarded the construction
industry as one of the major drivers toward the persistent
rise in temperature and global warming in general. Zaid
Alwan et al. [13] added that construction has particular-
ly impacted the environment through the production of
waste, CO2 emissions, change of land use, loss of biodiversi-
ty, and climate changes. However, these problems appeared
more in developing countries, for example, 24% of the CO2
generated in Malaysia comes from the construction sector
[22], in India 130,477 Gg which is equivalent to 53.4% of
national CO2 [23], in Nigeria, the emission from the con-
struction and manufacturing industries increased from
2557 to 23714 Gg of CO2 equivalent between 2000 and 2015
reflecting approximately 827% increase as observed which
is much above normal [24].
The “U.S. energy information and administration” re-
ported that the CO2 emission globally will increase, by the
year 2035, to about 42.7% higher than that of 2007. Thus,
showing an increment of greenhouse gases in many coun-
tries [6]. However, almost 40% of the total amount of these
emissions are from the construction sector [10, 18, 19,
25], in which materials consume 10–20% out of the 40%
from their production to demolition, including all the re-
lated emissions from their construction, transportation,
and even renovation activities, etc. [19]. The “Sustainable
Building and Construction Initiative (SCBI) of the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP)” reported that 30-
40% of global energy demand is from the construction in-
dustry, which is expected to grow at an average of 1.5% to
3.4% rate in the next coming 20 years. In practical terms,
the buildings contribute annually to the atmospheric emis-
sion with about 8.1 Gt of carbon dioxide [4, 26]. Tathagat
D. et al. 2015 have recognized that buildings accounted for
33 percent or 7.85 Gt of all the global CO2 emissions related
to energy, and the emissions are forecasted to rise by 2030
to about 11 Gt or even much higher value of 15.6 Gt [10]. It
can therefore be identified as a major contributing sector to
carbon emissions that requires urgent mitigation for a sus-
tainable future. Several studies on carbon emissions from
the construction of various types of structures have been
104 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
carried out by different researchers globally, some of which
are presented in Table 1.
4.1 Direct and Indirect Emission
For a given construction project there are two major
components of CO2 emissions, Direct emission (operation-
al CO2) and Indirect emission (embodied CO2) [49]. The
operational (Direct) CO2 emissions are usually generated
from the consumption of energy at the site and during other
various construction activities, while indirect carbon emis-
sions are generated through the extraction of construction
materials, production, transportation, demolition, and oth-
er non-building activities [9, 7]. The construction industry’s
carbon footprint is a concept that takes into accounts all the
environmental impacts of CO2 and other GHGs generated
during various construction activities [25]. This includes all
the emission impacts related to the materials used during
the construction of the projects, as well as other emissions
impacts related to the construction process itself, the service
period of the structure, and even the various emissions as-
sociated with its demolition [27]. Shihui Cheng et al. 2020
[29] reported that direct energy use consists of only 9.8%
of the construction process of his study with 358.8 kt CO2,
while the emissions from the material production constitute
90.2 percent, reaching 3310.2 kt. In his study, “Jingke Hong,
et al. 2014” [27] indicated that the manufacturing of con-
struction materials and the energy usage at the site were the
major sources of CO2 for both embodied and operational
GHG emission, with 97 percent of the total emissions com-
ing from indirect sources. He further identified numerous
sources of GHG emissions from his research on GHG emis-
sions during the construction process of a building in Chi-
na, in which he categorized the emissions as direct and indi-
rect, the summary of the categories is presented Table 2 [27].
Environmental impacts in construction projects arise
from the extraction of raw material to its final disposal,
this, however, includes all the related activities in between
including manufacturing, installation, distribution, main-
tenance, and demolition, which are based on the LCA pro-
cess [50]. Using a similar scenario, Wei Huang et al. 2017
[7] used five components to measure the CF of buildings;
construction materials production, transportation, the
construction process, direct energy usage, demolition, and
waste disposal [7]. Apart from that, other studies follow a
similar pattern while measuring, estimating, reporting, or
developing tools related to the CF of the construction sec-
tor. Some of which include a study by J. Giesekam, et al.
2016 [52], Jennifer Monahan 2013 [3], Institute of Civil En-
gineers (ICE) [51], Fei fei Fu et al. 2014 [28] among others.
4.1.1 Extraction and Quarrying
It involves the extraction of precious minerals and oth-
er natural resources from the earth, typically from the ore,
lode, vein, shale, reef, or deposit [53]. Mining is necessary
to acquire any material that cannot be produced agricul-
turally or artificially in a laboratory or factory. Materials
extracted by the mining process include gemstones, iron,
potash, oil shale, coal rock, chalk, calcareous stone, clay,
salt, and gravel, etc. [53], that are primarily used in the con-
struction industry.
The mining sector produces an annual Greenhouse gas
emission of between 1.9 and 5.1 gigatons of Carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2e) [54]. Mineral resources are presently
being drawn from the earth more frequently and often fast-
er than in the last 4 to 5 decades [55]. The world consumes
over 92b tons of metals, biomass materials, minerals, and
fossil fuel every year, and this estimated value is increasing
by about 3.2 percentage rate yearly [55]. Nonetheless, many
countries are not having adequate mining industries, which
means that they have to import fully or semi-processed
products and base metal concentrates to meet their ulti-
mate demand, however, as they import these materials and
products, they also import and contribute to their related
environmental impacts [56]. The mining activities includ-
ing the extraction and processing of the minerals generate
nearly 20 percent of the total air pollution health implica-
tions, and 26 percent of the total global carbon emissions
[55]. Even with all those massive amounts of carbon emis-
sions, the sector has just begun to set carbon mitigation
targets [54]. Theoretically, extraction can be decarbonized
completely (except for fugitive methane) [54].
4.1.2 Materials Production
As new buildings are becoming more energy-efficient,
material-related emissions account for a higher percent-
age of their overall impact on environmental changes. De-
velopers, builders, architects, and planners are becoming
more mindful of the building material’s impacts on climate
change and are gradually incorporating considerations of
environmental issues while selecting techniques and pro-
curement of various construction materials [2]. Feifei Fu et
al. (2014) [28], reported that; 97 percent of the overall car-
bon emission of his study is from embodied construction
materials, with the remaining 3 percent coming from cradle
to site transportation. He further found that the main con-
tributors to these emissions were blocks, steel, and concrete
used during the construction, which together contributed
to more than 60 percent of the total emission [28]. A similar
report by Jingke Hong et al. (2014) found the top 10 major
construction materials that accounted for about 86.6% of
all carbon emissions of his study, with steel and concrete as
the best two [27].
The construction sector is society’s largest energy user
which consumes about 40% of all the generated energy
through the production of building materials such as steel
and cement [10, 57]. In particular, materials production
needs more energy, generates more waste, and pollutes nat-
ural resources [58]. The fast expansion and rapid develop-
ment of the manufacturing industry would inevitably lead
to an increase in the overall CO2 emissions globally [59].
Table 1. Reviewed studies on various type of civil engineering projects
Reference Country Referenced from Type of structure Main material Floor area Method Quantity of CO2
2
Jingke Hong et al. China Residential complex Reinforced concrete structure 11508 m LCA Process 8707004 kg CO2e
(2014) [27]
Feifei Fu et al. UK Single story training Masonry wall 180 m2 LCA process 432 kg CO2/m2
(2014) [28] center Timber frame wall 363 kg CO2/m2
Shihui Cheng et al. China High speed railway line Concrete and steel 120 km Hybrid I-O 3669.0 Kt CO2
(2020) [29] LCA
Shashwath Sreedhar India Highway pavement Bituminous concrete Computer 3.09×107 KgCO2e
et al. (2016) [16] construction Portland cement concrete program took lit 3.89×107 KgCO2e
Rossi et al. (2012) [30] Belgian Jingke Hong et al. Residential building Masonry 192 m2 Process LCA 189 kg CO2e/m2
(2014) [27] Steel 164 kg CO2e/m2
Surahman and Kubota Indonesia I. C. Ezema et al. Simple residential house 57 m2 Hybrid LCA 575 kg CO2/m2
(2013) [31] (2016) [4] Medium residential house 127 m2 analysis 721 kg CO2/m2
Luxury residential house 300 m2 942 kg CO2/m2
Konig and Cristofaro Germany Jingke Hong et al. Residential building 970–7292 m2 Process LCA 430 kg CO2e/m2
(2012) [32] (2014) [27] (average value)
Abanda et al. Cameroon I. C. Ezema et al. Houses Mud brick ICE database 228 kg CO2/m2
(2014) [33] (2016) [4] Cement blocks 397 kg CO2/m2
Brunklaus et al. Sweden Jingke Hong et al. Residential building Concrete, wood Process LCA 400 kg CO2e/m2
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

(2010) [34] (2014) [27]

I. C. Ezema et al. Nigeria Residential block Reinforced concrete frame 720 m2 Survey and LCA 2395 kg/m2
(2016) [4] methods
Blengini and Carlo Italy Jingke Hong et al. Residential building Reinforced steel concrete 250 m2 LCA “770 kg CO2e/m2”
(2010) [35] (2014) [27]
“Nassen et al. Jennifer Monahan Detached dwelling LCA Cradle to 264 kg CO2/m2
(2007)” [36] (2013) [3] Multi-occupancy dwelling occupation 360 kg CO2/m2
Ortiz et al. Jingke Hong et al. Residential building Bricks based 125 m2 Process LCA 246 kg CO2e/m2
(2010) [37] (2014) [27] Not mentioned 108 m2 257 kg CO2e/m2
Hacker et al. UK Jennifer Monahan Light weight timber frame Timber LCA Cradle to 492 kg CO2/m2
(2008) [38] (2013) [3] Heavy weight concrete Concrete occupation 569 kg CO2/m2
Williams et al. UK Jingke Hong et al. Construction of office Reinforced steel concrete LCA 467 kg CO2e/m2
(2012) [39] (2014) [27] complex
Jennifer Monahan UK Timber framed house Larch and timber 83 m2 LCA 405 kg CO2/m2
105

(2013) [3] with larch cladding

 106

Table 1 (cont.). Reviewed studies on various type of civil engineering projects

Reference Country Referenced from Type of structure Main material Floor area Method Quantity of CO2
Timber framed house Brick and timber 535 kg CO2/m2
with brick cladding
Conventional house, Masonry 612 kg CO2/m2
made with masonry
cavity wall
Wallhagen et al. Sweden Jingke Hong et al. Office building Reinforced concrete 3537 m2 Process LCA 160 kg CO2e/m2
(2011) [40] (2014) [27]
Atmaca and Atmaca Turkey I. C. Ezema et al. High-rise 13 floor apartment Reinforced concrete LCA 5222 kg CO2/m2
(2015) [41] (2016) [4] Low-rise 3 floor residency 6485 kg CO2/m2
2
Wu et al. China Jingke Hong et al. Office building Reinforced concrete 36,500 m Process LCA 803 kg CO2e/m2
(2012) [42] (2014) [27]
Li, et al. China I. C. Ezema et al. Residential building 1460 m2 LCA 1238 kg CO2/m2
(2013) [43] (2016) [4]
“Van Ooteghem and Xu “Canada” Jingke Hong et al. Commercial building Hot-rolled steel 586 m2 LCA 549 kg CO2e/m2
(2012)” [44] (2014) [27] Structure made with a heavy 517 kg CO2e/m2
“Pre-engineered steel” 355 kg CO2e/m2
“Steel-PREDOM” 522 kg CO2e/m2
“Timber-PREDOM” 451 kg CO2e/m2
“Kua and Wong Singapore Jingke Hong et al. Commercial building Reinforced steel concrete 52,094 m2 LCA “121 kg CO2e/m2”
(2012)” [45] (2014) [27]
“Yan et al. (2010)” [46] “Hong Kong” Commercial building Reinforced concrete 43,210 m2 LCA “525 kg CO2e/m2”
Alam and Ahmad Bangladesh I. C. Ezema et al. Residential building Stone 502 m2 LCA 9941 kg/m2
(2013) [47] (2016) [4] Bricks 1274 kg/m2
Filimonau et al. (2011) UK Jingke Hong et al. Hotel 3300 m2 Process LCA 761 kgCO2e/m2
[48], (adjusted) (2014) [27]
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
Table 2. GHG sources
Direct emission Indirect emission
1) Energy consumption of construction equipment such as;
• Bulldozers
• Excavator
• Piling machine etc.
2) “Onsite transportation”
3) “Construction electricity use”
4) “Assembly and miscellaneous works” such as;
• “Welding process”
• “Chemical use”
• “Waterproof paint”
• “Reserve holes”
• “Pipe binder etc.”
5) “Onsite worker activities” such as;
• “Cooking oil consumption”
• “Fugitive discharge from septic”
• “Water production and discharge”
Adopted from Jingke Hong et al. 2014 [27].
Figure 2. Process of carbon generation from construction industries [3, 7, 28, 51, 52].
Table 3. CO2 emission coefficient and waste rate for the production of construction materials
Materials Timber
CO2 emission coefficient of the material 0.200
Rate of waste 5%
Source: [7, 62, 63].
Apart from that, the value-added of the manufacturing sec-
tor was found to be the most significant positive driver of
the CO2 emissions growth [60]. Jian Liu et al, 2019 [59] state
that the carbon dioxide emissions from the manufacturing
sector in china increased by around “220.77%” from 1995
to 2015 and contributed to about “58.27%” of the country’s
carbon dioxide emissions. Nigeria is reported as one of the
highest emitters of CO2 from the manufacturing and con-
struction industries in Africa, with a total fuel combustion
rate of about 12.2 percent in 2014 [61]. Another study by
Wei Huang et al. (2017) revealed that the CO2 emissions
from the production of material for construction purposes
are responsible for more than 45 percent of the overall foot-
print of the industry. while on the other hand, the emissions
from the use of resources accounted for about 40 percent,
and carbon emissions from the transportation of building
materials were just about 1%.[7].
107
1. Building materials productions and transportation
2. “Transportation of construction equipment”
3. “Offsite staff activities, including;”
• “Offsite electricity use”
• “Staff transportation”
• “Fugitive discharge from septic”
• “Water production and discharge”
Aluminium Glass Cement Steel
9.677 1.582 1.169 3.672
2.5% 5% 2.5% 5%
The carbon dioxide emissions from the production of
materials including, iron, flat glass, aluminium, timber,
steel, and cement are generated through the life cycle pro-
cess of the production [7]. In which the manufacturing pro-
cess of iron and steel produces the highest volume of the
total carbon emissions from all these materials [56]. Chen
W Q et al. [62], and Zhu Y et al. [63] conducted a research
study on the cases of environmental emissions and LC ener-
gy use from the production of materials used in residential
constructions, in which they found the CO2 emission con-
dition for the production of some of the major construction
materials including timber, aluminium, glass, cement, and
steel as described Table 3.
The embodied CO2 of materials used in a particular
building is determined by the amount and types of various
materials used during the construction process. The choice
of suitable construction materials therefore directly defines
108 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
the type of the energy source as well as the quantity of CO2
emission based on material type, material quality, and the
emission factor of each of the materials [28]. Some of the
reviewed studies related to the carbon footprints of various
construction materials are tabulated Table 4.
In general, the production of construction materials
contributes significantly to the overall CO2 emissions of
the industry, with 2/3 of the total emissions mainly com-
ing from the production of concrete and steel. However,
the emission from these two materials is connected to their
manufacturing processes including cement production and
steel processing, which are among the economic sectors
that are heavily dependent upon fossil energy usage [27].
4.1.3 Transportation
Transportation is the movement of people and goods
from a particular location to another. It includes the trans-
portation of various construction personnel, machinery,
and materials such as steel, reinforcement, fine and coarse
aggregates from the original supply source to the project
site [28]. Transportation and supply of various materials
and equipment often affect our environment significant-
ly by the mechanism of additional energy consumption
while moving and conveying them from the production to
the assembly points and finally to the project site [58]. Due
to these environmental effects, this transportation activity
has drawn considerable attention as it is among the prima-
ry contributors toward higher CO2 emissions globally [66].
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”
reported that the transport industry generates about 13 per-
cent of the overall global GHG emissions annually [IPCC
Climate Change (2007)] [16]. In his study, Yi Yang, et al.
(2019) reported that, the carbon footprint of some major
megacities including New York, London, Tokyo, and others
are mainly connected to building constructions, and trans-
portation activities, with the manufacturing sector not hav-
ing more than 10% proportions [67]. Also, according to the
Asian Development Bank [68], transportation contributes
to about 13% of the total GHGs globally and 23% of CO2
emission related to energy usage [68], out of which 3/4 of
all the transportation-related emissions is directly related to
the road freight traffic [68]. Road freight in the UK accounts
for about 22 percent of the transportation sector’s emissions,
or 6 percent of the country’s total CO2 emissions [66]. In
the United States, freight transportation accounts for about
78 percent of the total emission from transportation activi-
ties, and the percentage of the overall transportation’s GHG
emissions rose from about 24.9 percent in 1900 to about
27.3 percent in 2005 [66]. Related figures were also reported
in China, where the road freight activities generate about
30% of the total transportation sector’s CO2 emissions [66].
A study by Raymond J. Cole [69, 70] found that employee
transportation to and from the construction site typically led
to higher CO2 emissions than either the on-site machinery
used or the movement of materials and equipment to the job
site [69, 70]. The research study finally revealed that, based
on the assembly of the work, the movement of workers to
and from the work site added between 5 to about 85 percent
of the entire Greenhouse gas emission [69, 70]. In addition
to these studies, other researchers have identified the emis-
sions resulting from the transportation of different building
materials with regard to either fuel consumption, loads, or
distance, some of which include the following Table 5.
Transportation emissions are rising faster than in oth-
er energy-using industries and are forecasted to increase
worldwide by 80% between 2007, and 2030 [66]. Many sci-
entific consensuses exist on the need to drastically mini-
mize our GHG emissions to prevent severe environmental
changes such as global warming in the upcoming years [68].
4.1.4 Construction Operation
Throughout the stages of major construction projects
such as foundation works, road construction, site prepa-
ration, and maintenance activities, etc., diesel-driven
construction machinery contributes significantly towards
air pollutions and GHGs in the environments [73]. Pol-
lutants from equipment such as carbon monoxide (CO),
PM 2.5, PM 10, and Nitrogen oxides endanger our en-
vironment and pose a potential risk to the health of the
people and other living species [73]. Different construc-
tion activities and processes have different working re-
quirements and conditions, which affect the equipment’s
working period under various engine status and load
conditions [7]. For construction works such as hauling,
digging, compaction, packing, lifting, and backfilling, etc.
“off-road construction equipment” is usually deployed
for the operation [73]. The off-road equipment’s carbon
emissions come from the fuel and energy usage during
these activities [28]. Carbon dioxide is produced from the
burning of fossil fuel through activities involving power
generation, production of various materials such as con-
crete, and combustion of solid waste [20].
However, it is difficult to quantify and measure the ac-
tual emissions from the equipment as they fluctuate with
many impacting factors [73]. Estimating the exact amount
of emissions is a complex job due to the lack of monitoring
data and measurement. The measurement of the emission
nowadays can only be performed based on the time of oper-
ation, specified emission rates, deterioration of equipment,
and load factors. The emission can also be calculated based
on the amount of fuel consumed by the engines during a
given time. Pollutants and CO2 emissions from the gaso-
line-based construction vehicles are major risks to climate,
industry, government, and the public in general [73] as they
release a substantial volume of GHGs into the environment.
Hence, the selection of suitable construction management
techniques in the use of construction equipment, human
activities, and transportation should be emphasized [27].
Table 4. Reviewed studies on the CO2 emission of 18 construction materials
S/N Material Type of building Reference Country CO2 emission
1 Cement Type of building Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] 0.759 kg CO2/kg
Residential complex Shashwath Sreedhar et al. (2016) [16] India 0.8207 kg CO2e/kg
Highway construction Hammond & jones (2008) [64] UK 0.83 kg CO2/kg
Hammond & jones (2011) [45] 0.95 kg CO2e/kg
Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. (2017) [21] Turkey 1.165 kg CO2e/kg
2 Steel Highway tunnel Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] 1.45 kg CO2/m3
Residential complex Shashwath Sreedhar et al. (2016) [16] India 4.67 kg CO2e/kg
Highway construction Jennifer Monahan (2013) [3] UK 3.81 kg CO2/kg
Timber frame house Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. (2017) [21] Turkey 0.43 kg CO2e/kg
Highway tunnel Purnell (2013) [43] 0.43 kg CO2e/kg
3 Timber Residential complex Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] 583 kg CO2/m3
4 Glass Residential complex Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] 1..09 kg CO2/kg
5 Aluminium Residential complex Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] 5.9 kg CO2/kg
Timber frame house Jennifer Monahan (2013) [3] UK 8.231 kg CO2/kg
6 Crushed sand Highway tunnel Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. (2017) [21] Turkey 0.005 kg CO2e/kg
7 Concrete Timber frame house Jennifer Monahan (2013) [3] UK 0.1741 kg CO2/kg
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

Residential complex Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] 261 kg CO2/m3

8 Bitumen Highway construction Shashwath Sreedhar et al. (2016) [16] India 0.426 kg CO2e/kg
9 Gypsum Timber frame house Jennifer Monahan (2013) [3] UK 0.30615 kg CO2/kg
10 Brick Timber frame house Jennifer Monahan (2013) [3] UK 0.519 kg CO2/kg
11 Ceramics tile Conventional building Judit Nyári (2015) [19] 0.6125 kg CO2e/kg
12 Copper sheet (roof) Conventional building Judit Nyári (2015) [19] 0.9732 kg CO2e/kg
13 Wooden door Conventional building Judit Nyári (2015) [19] 18.450 kg CO2e/piece
14 Wooden window Conventional building Judit Nyári (2015) [19] 42.175 kg CO2e/piece
15 Fly ash Highway tunnel Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. (2017) [21] Turkey 0.01 kg CO2e/kg
Purnell (2013) [43] 0.01 kg CO2e/ton
16 Super plasticizers Highway tunnel Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al (2017) [21] Turkey 0.01 kg CO2e/kg
17 Lime Highway construction Shashwath Sreedhar et al. (2016) [16] India 2.81 kg CO2e/kg
18 Aggregates Highway construction Shashwath Sreedhar et al. (2016) [16] India 0.0028 kg CO2e/kg
109
110 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

Table 5. CO2 emission from transportation activities

Reference Country Materials Load CO2 emission
Ozen & Tuydes (2013) [71] Turkey 2.66 kg CO2/ litre
DEFRA (referenced from Mahmure Övül UK 24 ton 0.918 kg CO2/km
Arıoğlu Akan et al. 2017) [21]
Thomas et al. (2019) [72] 30 ton 33.81g CO2/ton per km
Wei Huang et al. (2017) [7] China Cement 28.57/100 m2
Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. 2017) [21] Turkey 24 ton/round 1.01 kg CO2/km
Wei Huang et al. (2017) [7] China Steel 9.71/100 m2
Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. 2017) [21] Turkey 24 ton/round 0.95 kg CO2/km
Wei Huang et al. (2017) [7] China Sand 57.9/100 m2
Mahmure Övül Arıoğlu Akan et al. 2017) [21] Turkey Natural sand 27 ton/round 0.95 kg CO2/km
Turkey Crushed sand 27 ton/round 1.01 kg CO2/km
Wei Huang et al. (2017) [7] China Gravel 120.48/100 m2
Wei Huang et al. (2017) [7] China Timber 1.3/100 m2
Most of the data are adopted from [7].

Figure 3. Emission from concrete production [74].

The Figure 3 describes some of the processes which emit
carbon during the production of concrete at the site [74].
A large amount of CO2 is released during these process-
es through the heavy construction equipment operations
that add to the industry’s overall carbon footprint from
different activities, including mixing, transporting, placing,
compacting, and curing [73]. As demonstrated in the above
figure;
• The CO2 emissions of the mixing phase are derived
mainly from the consumption of energy by the mixing
machines. Also, the mixing cylinder, sieving, control
system, weighting components, and material transfer-
ring components are all electrically operated [74], which
also contributes to the total CO2 emissions through its
generation.
• The emission of the transportation phase is attributed to
the pollution emitted by vehicle engines, conveyor belts,
and other transportation equipment [74].
• In the laying and placing process, the emission is de-
rived from the consumption of energy by various equip-
ment used for laying and fixing materials [74].
• The GHG emission of the compacting process comes
from the rollers and vibrators’ diesel/energy consump-
tion [74].
• And lastly, the emission of the curing phase comes
mainly from the consumption of fuel by the trucks and
equipment used for curing the materials [74].
4.1.5 Demolition and Disposal
Building activities can generate a significant amount of
waste materials that need to be disposed of, besides, it has
to be deconstructed or demolished at the end of its useful
life cycle, producing large quantities of waste [51]. The car-
bon emission from disposal activities is primarily derived
from the initial embodied emissions of the recycled materi-
als as well as the transfer of materials after the construction
activities to other areas outside the project’s site [28]. The
construction industry uses 40 percent of the world’s over-
all raw materials and it produces about “136Mt of waste”
in the US alone per year [19]. In the United Kingdom, the
industry generates approximately about 70 million tons of
waste annually, out of which 13 million tons are disposed
of [58]. Although there are alternatives for recycling and
reusing materials for the amount of waste produced in the
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
first place, there is still a significant amount of waste being
disposed of in landfill [51]. Energy is consumed to demol-
ish the construction, recycle certain materials and disposal
of others by transporting debris and waste to landfill sites
or incinerators [75]. Hence large quantities of CO2 will be
generated from activities that are carried out by heavy con-
struction equipment which, in return, will make a signifi-
cant contribution toward greenhouse gas emissions.
5. DISCUSSION
The discussed papers in this review are not an exten-
sive list of all the research studies conducted in this field,
but it is easy to see proof of so many challenges, for exam-
ple, the limits of each case study are often different. Some
studies use a lifecycle assessment in which they study the
entire impact of the concerned project or structure. While
others only consider the emission measurement during ex-
traction, production, or transportation of a particular ma-
terial in their study [1]. The literature review found that the
quantification for the construction sector did not put much
focus on capturing the sector’s overall potential greenhouse
emissions and reduction potential [15]. Nonetheless, many
of the reviewed studies concentrated more on the indirect
emissions and were mostly restricted owing to the inade-
quate comprehensive off-site and on-site process informa-
tion due to limited system boundaries, especially the data
related to various miscellaneous works and assembly as well
as human activities associated with the construction. Apart
from that other observation were made from the analysis of
the literature as summarized below;
• The majority of the studies analysed the carbon foot-
print concerning a particular country, city, or region
of developed countries and were mostly funded by the
public authorities. While on the contrary, developing
countries and Africa, in particular, has a very minor
share of the studies [15]. Hence, there is a desperate
exigency for a CF study of other numerous construc-
tion activities and the industry itself in developing
countries where massive amount of CO2 is generat-
ed every year, for example, 24% of CO2 generated in
Malaysia comes from the construction sector [22]. In
India, the transportation sector generates around “161
MMT” of CO2, making it 3rd in the world’s annual CO2
emissions, which is responsible for about 6 percent of
the total emissions globally as reported in 2016 [53,
15]. Similarly, in Nigeria, the emission from the con-
struction and manufacturing industries Increased
from 2557 to 23714 Gg of CO2 equivalent between
2000 and 2015 reflecting approximately 827% increase
as observed which is much above normal [24].
• The literature review found that, more than 50 per-
cent of the studies use the process-based LCA as their
main methodological approach for quantifying the
construction sector’s CO2 emission. Other approaches
111
used include input-output analysis, Hybrid LCA, sur-
veys, structural decomposition analysis, computer-pro-
grammed tools, and simulation [3, 1, 15]. And despite
the fact that many of the research findings were based
on the LCA techniques, most of these methodologies
were often largely employed for buildings or regional
CF analysis without focusing much on the consump-
tion-based CF of various construction activities taking
into account the unwavering importance of transporta-
tion and construction processes [15, 28]. However, even
though some researchers have recognized the emission
effect from the construction process, it should be noted
that many other activities in the construction indus-
tries such as electrical fittings, waterproofing, thermal
insulation, and painting, etc. that produce additional
greenhouse gases were often omitted in such studies
[27]. As such, there is a need for a thorough study on
the greenhouse gas emission of a construction site using
full system boundaries, including on-site assembly pro-
cesses and human activities related to the construction,
among many others.
• After analyzing each particular source of emissions and
numerous studies in the literature, it can be seen that
the activity with the greatest potential for GHG emis-
sion reduction were building material production. As
such studies should be focused on addressing various
sustainable construction material with a lower carbon
footprint for use.
• Lastly, there are very few papers that discussed the es-
timation of the CO2 emissions pertaining to infrastruc-
tural projects. And, apart from a paper by Jingke Hong,
et al. 2014 [27], there is no other paper found in the
reviewed studies presenting a systematic, open-access,
and functional tool that would enable researchers across
the globe to estimate the construction’s CF comprehen-
sively, and because of that, a comparison between these
studies is not realistic owing to the wide variability in
the reported figures and the different assumptions and
presumption made by the authors [72]. This shows areas
where steps can be taken to minimize the carbon emis-
sions not just in the construction sector itself but also in
many other interconnected sectors such as transporta-
tion, mining, manufacturing, among others [15].
6. CONCLUSION
Several researchers have studied the various contribu-
tions of the construction sector towards GHG emissions.
However, from the systematic analysis of some of these stud-
ies, it has been found that the majority of researchers are pri-
marily focused on a case study of a particular country, city, or
region using life cycle assessment methods [3, 1]. In general,
comparisons between the results of the reviewed papers are
unreasonable as many of the findings were different, some of
the authors examined only one particular aspect of the con-
112 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
struction, some towns, some countries, etc. And even those
who have studied similar aspect, such as cement or steel,
have all used separate methodologies, different techniques
of reporting, and even the units used were mostly different.
Despite this, the scope of emission from the construction
industry is remarkably clear, and the carbon findings can be
found throughout the literature [3][9, 72]. Various ways to
reduce the CF of the construction industry have been widely
discussed, but most of the strategies are designs to mitigate
the near future climate change impact without considering
the impact in the longer future [18].
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The authors confirm that the data that supports the
findings of this study are available within the article. Raw
data that support the finding of this study are available from
the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
The author declared that this study has received no fi-
nancial support.
PEER-REVIEW
Externally peer-reviewed.
REFERENCES
[1] David John Jackson,(2020). Addressing the chal-
lenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
construction industry: a multi-perspective approach
(Doctor of dissertation).
[2] Edeoja Joy Acheyini, Edeoja Alex Okibe,(2015).
Carbon Emission Management in the Construction
Industry – Case Studies Of Nigerian Construction
Industry. American Journal of Engineering Re-
search (AJER), 4 (7), 112-122. http://www.ajer.org/
papers/v4(07)/O04701120122.pdf
[3] Jennifer Monahan, (2013). Housing and carbon re-
duction: Can mainstream ‘eco-housing’ deliver on
its low carbon promises? (Doctoral dissertation)
[4] I. C. Ezema, A. P. Opoko, and A. A. Oluwatayo,
(2016). De-carbonizing the Nigerian Housing Sec-
tor: The Role of Life Cycle CO2 Assessment. Inter-
national journal of applied environmental science.,
11(1), 325–349.
[5] United nation environment programme, (2015). UN
environment “walk the talk” on carbon neutrality.
Retrieved from: https://www.unenvironment.org/
news-and-stories/story/un-environment-walks-talk
carbonneutrality#:~:text=A%20November%20
2018%20report%20by,and%20400.1%20ppm%20
in%202015.
[6] Q. Shi, T. Yu, and J. Zuo,(2017). What leads to
low-carbon buildings? A China study. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., 50, 726–734. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10061693
[7] Wei Huang, Fei Li, Sheng-hui Cui, Fei Li, Lizhen
Huang, and Jian-yi Lin, (2016). Carbon Footprint
and Carbon Emission Reduction of Urban Buildings:
A Case in Xiamen City, China. Procedia Engineer-
ing, 198, 1007 – 1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2017.07.146
[8] IPCC, (2013). Long-term climate change: Projec-
tions, commitments, and irreversibility. In Climate
Change 2013, “the Physical Science Basis: Work-
ing Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change “. pp. 1029–1136, 2008
[9] Tao Gao, Qing Liu and Jianping Wang,(2014). A
comparative study of carbon footprint and assess-
ment standards. International Journal of Low-Car-
bon Technologies, 9(3), 237–243. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ijlct/ctt041
[10] Tathagat D., and Dod R.D., (2015). Role of Green
Buildings in Sustainable Construction- Need, Chal-
lenges, and Scope in the Indian Scenario. Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 12 (2) Ver. II, 01-
09.
[11] UN (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement - Con-
ference of the Parties COP 21. Retrieved from http://
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.
pdf
[12] Surenthira Stephen Ramachanderan, Vinod Kumar
Venkiteswaran, Yap Tze Chuen, (2017). Carbon
(CO2) Footprint Reduction Analysis for Buildings
through Green Rating Tools in Malaysia. Energy
Procedia, 105, 3648 – 3655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.03.841
[13] Z. Alwan, P. Jones, and P. Holgate, (2016). Strategic
sustainable development in the UK construction
industry, through the framework for strategic sus-
tainable development, using Building Information
Modelling. J. Clean. Prod., 140, 349–358. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.085
[14] O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, E. Sokona, S. Far-
ahani, K. Kadner, Seyboth, J. Minx, (2014). Summa-
ry for policymakers, Climate Change, Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved
from IPCC Publications: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summa-
ry-for-policymakers.pdf
[15] Nuri Cihat Onat, Murat Kucukvar, (2020). Carbon
footprint of construction industry: A global review
and supply chain analysis. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews, 124. 109783. http://dx.doi.
J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109783
[16] Shashwath Sreedhar, Prathmesh Jichkar, Krishna
Prapoorna Biligiri, (2016). Investigation of Carbon
Footprints of Highway Construction Materials in
India. Transportation Research Procedia, 17, 291 –
300.
[17] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, (2020). carbon
footprint. (accessed on 6/06/2020) retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint
[18] A. Mastrucci, A. Marvuglia, E. Leopold, E. Benet-
to, (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks
from urban to transnational scales: a review. Re-
new. Sustain. Energy Rev., 74, 316-332, 10.1016/j.
rser.2017.02.060Article
[19] Judit Nyári, (2015). Carbon footprint of construc-
tion products (a comparison of application of in-
dividual Environmental Product Declarations and
Building Information Modeling software) (Bachelor
Dissertation).
[20] Andriel Evandro Fenner, Charles Joseph Kibert,
Junghoon Woo, Shirley Morque, Mohamad Raz-
kenari, Hamed Hakim, Xiaoshu Lu, (2018). The
carbon footprint of buildings: A review of method-
ologies and Applications. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews, 94, 1142 – 1152. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.012
[21] M. Ö. Arıoğlu Akan, D. G. Dhavale, and J. Sarkis,
(2017). Greenhouse gas emissions in the construc-
tion industry: an analysis and evaluation of a con-
crete supply chain. J. Clean. Prod., 167, 1195-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.225
[22] M. F. Klufallah, Mustafa M.A.; Nuruddin, Muhd
Fadhil; Othman, Idris; Khamidi, (2016). The devel-
opment of embodied carbon emission benchmark
model for purpose-built offices in Malaysia. Eng.
Challenges Sustain. Future, 199–204.
[23] S. K. Sharma et al. (2011). Greenhouse gas inventory
estimates for India. Curr. Sci., 101 (3), 405–415.
[24] BUR1 (2018). Federal Republic of Nigeria First Bi-
ennial Update Report (BUR1) of the Federal Repub-
lic of Nigeria under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
[25] B. Lin, O. E. Omoju, and J. U. Okonkwo, (2015).
Impact of industrialization on CO2 emissions in Ni-
geria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 52, 1228–1239.
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.164
[26] Jennings M., Hirst N., and Gambhir A., (2011). Re-
duction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Glob-
al Building Sector to 2050. Report GR3, Grantham
Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College Lon-
don. Retrieved from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/
media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/
publications/institutereports-and-analytical-notes/
Reduction-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-in-the-
113
global-building-sector-to-2050-GR-3.pdf.
[27] Jingke Hong, Geoffrey Qiping Shen, Yong Feng, Wil-
liam Sin-tong Lau, Chao Mao, (2014). Greenhouse
gas emissions during the construction phase of a
building: a case study in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production,103, 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.11.023
[28] Feifei Fu, Hanbin Luo, Hua Zhong, and Andrew Hill,
(2014). Development of a Carbon Emission Calcula-
tions System for Optimizing Building Plan Based on
the LCA Framework. Hindawi Publishing Corpo-
ration, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, ID
653849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/653849
[29] Shihui Cheng, Jianyi Lin, Wangtu (Ato) Xu, Dewei
Yangd, Jiahui Liu, Huimei Li, (2020). Carbon, water,
land and material footprints of China’s high-spee-
drailway construction. Transportation Research
Part D, 82, 102314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2020.102314
[30] Rossi, B., Marique, A.F., Reiter, S., (2012). Life-cycle
assessment of residential buildings in three differ-
ent European locations, case study. Build. Environ,
51, 402-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.build-
env.2011.11.002
[31] Surahman, U. and Kubota, T., (2013). Life Cycle
Energy and CO2 Emissions of Residential Buildings
in Bandung, Indonesia. Advanced Materials Re-
search, 689, 54-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/build-
ings5041131
[32] Konig, H., Cristofaro, M.L.D., (2012). Benchmarks
for life cycle costs and life cycle assessment of res-
idential buildings. Build. Res. Inform. 40 (5), 558-
580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.702017
[33] Abanda, F. H., Nkeng, G. E., Tah, J. H. M., Ohand-
ja, E. N. F. and Manjia, M.B., (2014). Embodied En-
ergy and CO2 Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement
block Houses. AIM’s Energy, 2(1), 18-40. https://doi.
org/10.3934/energy.2014.1.18
[34] Brunklaus, B., Thormark, C., Baumann, H.,
(2010). Illustrating limitations of energy studies
of buildings with LCA and actor analysis. Build.
Res. Information, 38 (3), 265-279. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09613211003654871
[35] Blengini, G.A., Carlo, T.D., (2010). Energy-saving
policies and low-energy residential buildings: an
LCA case study to support decision makers in Pied-
mont (Italy). International Journal of Life Cycle As-
sessment, 15(7), 652-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007
%2Fs11367-010-0190-5
[36] Nässén, J., Holmberg, Wadeskip, A., and Nyman,
M., (2007). Direct and indirect energy use and car-
bon emissions in the production phase of buildings:
An input-output analysis. Energy, 32(9), 1593-1602.
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2007.01.002
114 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
[37] Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., (2010). Oper-
ational energy in the life cycle of residential dwell-
ings: the experience of Spain and Colombia. Appl.
Energy, 87 (2), 673-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2010.02.021
[38] Hacker, J., De Saulles, T., Minson, A., and Holmes,
M., (2008). Embodied and operational carbon di-
oxide emissions from housing: A case study on
the effects of thermal mass and climate change.
Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 375-384. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.02.021
[39] Williams, D., Elghali, L., Wheeler, R., France, C.,
(2012). Climate change influence on building life-
cycle greenhouse gas emissions: case study of a UK
mixed-use development. Energy Build,. 48, 112-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.016
[40] Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T.,
(2011). Basic building life cycle calcu- lations to de-
crease contribution to climate change e case study
on an office building in Sweden. Build. Environ., 46
(10), 1863-1871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.build-
env.2011.02.003
[41] Atmaca, A. and Atmaca, N., (2015). Life cycle energy
(LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A)
assessment of two residential buildings in Gazian-
tep, Turkey, Energy and Buildings, 102, 417-431.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2015.06.008
[42] Wu, H.J., Yuan, Z.W., Zhang, L., Bi, J.,(2012). Life cy-
cle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office
building in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 17 (2),
105-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0342-2
[43] Li, D. Z., Chen, H. X., Hui, E. C. M., Zhang, J. B. and
Li, Q. M., (2013). A methodology for estimating the
life-cycle carbon efficiency of a residential building.
Building and Environment, 59, 448-455. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.012
[44] Van Ooteghem, K., Xu, L., (2012). The life-cycle
assessment of a single-story retail building in Can-
ada. Build. Environ. 49, 212-226. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.09.028
[45] Kua, H.W., Wong, C.L., (2012). Analyzing the life
cycle greenhouse gas emission and energy con-
sumption of a multi-storied commercial building
in Singapore from an extended system boundary
perspective. Energy Build., 51, 6-14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.027
[46] Yan, H., Shen, Q., Fan, L.C.H., Wang, Y., Zhang,
L., (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in building
construction: a case study of One Peking in Hong
Kong. Build. Environ., 45 (4), 949-955. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2009.09.014
[47] Alam, M. S. and Ahmad, S. I., (2013). Analysis of the
life cycle environmental impact of residential build-
ing in Bangladesh. International Journal of Tech-
nology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering,
2(1), 1 – 4.
[48] Filimonau, V., Dickinson, J., Robbins, D., Huijbregts,
M.A.J., (2011). Reviewing the carbon footprint anal-
ysis of hotels: Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as a
holistic method for carbon impact appraisal of tour-
ist accommodation. J. Clean. Prod., 18, 1917-1930.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.002
[49] Purnell, P., (2013). The carbon footprint of reinforced
concrete. Advances in Cement Research, 25(6), 362-
368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/adcr.13.00013
[50] J. C. Cheng, (2011). A Web Service Framework for
Measuring and Monitoring Environmental and
Carbon Footprint in Construction Supply Chains.
Procedia Engineering, 14, 141–147. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.016
[51] Institute of Civil engineers (ICE). Carbon dioxide
in construction. (accessed on 12/06/2020) Retrieved
from https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/
Carbon_dioxide_in_construction#:~:text=Sustain-
able%20materials,product%20of%20the%20chemi-
cal%20reactions
[52] J. Giesekam, J. R. Barrett, and P. Taylor, (2016). Con-
struction sector views on low carbon building mate-
rials. Build. Res. Inf., 44(4), 423–444. https://doi.org
/10.1080/09613218.2016.1086872
[53] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Mining. (accessed
on 14/06/2020) retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Mining#:~:text=Mining%20is%20the%20
extraction%20of,economic%20interest%20to%20
the%20miner.
[54] Lindsay Delevingne, Will Glazener, Liesbet Grégoir,
and Kimberly Henderson, (2020). Climate risk and
decarbonization: What every mining CEO needs to
know. Metals & Mining and Sustainability Practices,
Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com
[55] The Guardian Newspaper,(2019). Resource ex-
traction responsible for half world’s carbon emis-
sion. (accessed on 13/06/2020), retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/
mar/12/resource-extraction-carbon-emissions-bio-
diversity-loss#:~:text=Extraction.
[56] St´ephanie Muller, Fr´ed´eric Lai, Antoine Bey-
lot, Baptiste Boitier, Jacques Villeneuve,(2020). No
mining activities, no environmental impacts? As-
sessing the carbon footprint of metal requirements
induced by the consumption of a country with al-
most no mines. Sustainable Production and Con-
sumption, 22, 24-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
spc.2020.02.002
[57] A. Mohammed, M. Abbakyari,(2016). Strategies for
achieving sustainability in the Nigerian building de-
sign and construction industry. Ideal Journal of En-
gineering and Applied Sciences, 2,(3), 103-108.
 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021
[58] Adebowale Philips Akinyemi, Asa Olusola Adekun-
le, Omotehinse Olusegun Joseph, Ankeli Ikpeme [67]
Anthony, and Daniel Ibrahim Dabara, (2017). The
need for green building rating systems development
for Nigeria: the process, progress, and prospect. Ac-
ademic Journal of Science, 7 (2), 35–44.
[59] Jian Liu, Qingshan Yang, Yu Zhang, Wen Sun, and [68]
Yiming Xu, (2019). Analysis of CO2 Emissions in
China’s Manufacturing Industry Based on Extended
Logarithmic Mean Division Index Decomposition. [69]
Sustainability, 11(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11010226
[60] Chen C., Gong, Z.,(2013). The Research on the
Change Points and Cycles of Carbon Dioxide Emis-
sions of China’s Manufacturing Industry from 1985 [70]
to 2010. Forum Sci. Technol. China, 1, 51–59. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11010226
[61] The World bank, (2014). CO2 emissions from man-
ufacturing industries and construction (% of total
fuel combustion). (accessed on 24/06/2020), Re- [71]
trieved from:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
EN.CO2.MANF.ZS
[62] Zhu Y, Chen Y., (2010). Cases for life-cycle energy
consumption and environmental emission in res- [72]
idential buildings. Journal of Tsinghua University
(Science and Technology), 50(3), 330-33.
[63] Chen W Q, Wan H Y., (2009). Life cycle assessment
of aluminum and the environmental impacts of alu-
minum industry. Light Metals, 5, 310. [73]
[64] Hammond, G., & Jones, C., (2011). Inventory of
Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0. Sustainable
Energy Research Team (SERT), Department of Me-
chanical Engineering, University of Bath UK. [74]
[65] Hammond, G. and Jones, C., (2008) Embod-
ied energy and carbon in construction materials.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Energy, 161(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1680/
ener.2008.161.2.87
[66] Jin Li, Qihui Lu, and Peihua Fu, (2015). Carbon [75]
Footprint Management of Road Freight Transport
under the Carbon Emission Trading Mechanism.
Hindawi (Advanced Transportation Mathematical
Modeling and Simulation), ID 814527, https://doi.
View publication stats
115
org/10.1155/2015/814527
Yi Yang, Guanfei Meng, (2019). The decoupling ef-
fect and driving factors of carbon footprint in meg-
acities: The case study of Xi’an in western China.
Sustainable cities and society, 44, 783 – 792. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.012
Asian Development bank, (2010). Reducing Carbon
Emissions from Transport Project. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/derec/adb/47170274.pdf
National Construction Sector Lead U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Washington, (2009). Po-
tential for reducing greenhouse gas emission in the
construction sector. Retrieved from truitt.peter@
epa.gov
Raymond J. Cole, (1999). Energy and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Associated with the Construction of
Alternative Structural Systems. Building and Envi-
ronment,34, 335 – 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2
FS0360-1323(98)00020-1
Ozen, M., & Tuydeş Yaman, H., (2013a). Estimation
of CO2 Emissions from Inter-City Freight Transpor-
tation in Turkey. Süleyman Demirel University Jour-
nal of Natural and Applied Science, 17(3), 56-64.
Man Yu, Thomas Wiedmann, Robert Crawford,
Catriona Tait, (2017). The carbon footprint of
Australia’s construction sector. Procedia Engineer-
ing, 180, 211 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pro-
eng.2017.04.180
H. Fan, (2017). A Critical Review and Analysis of
Construction equipment emission factors. Pro-
cedia Engineering, 196, 351 – 358. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.210
Feng Ma, Aimin Sha, Ruiyu Lin, Yue Huang, and
Chao Wang, (2016). Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Asphalt Pavement Construction: A Case Study
in China. international journal of environmental
research and public health,13(3), 351. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph13030351
Woubishet Zewdu Taffese, and Kassahun Admassu
Abegaz,(2019). Embodied Energy and CO2 Emis-
sions of Widely Used Building Materials: The Ethi-
opian Context. Buildings, 9(6), 136. https://doi.
org/10.3390/buildings9060136